PuFu

yes, i have heard about that myself. The difference is that they can't use the trademark (see GTA, and even BIS coyotas). But this has been covered before

It's a lot more complicated than that. Let's take an example: I do model of a VW Golf. I have it modelled with all the details, up to the millimetre. The model is my own IP, and i can use it as i want (sell it etc). The trademark or the design does NOT belong to me, but to Audi-VW concern. But then again, i am not selling the design, nor the trademark, but a 3d model based on the design. I never said i own or that i was part of the designing process. Plagiarizing is a totally different game, which we can have a talk about, but it isn't this.

It depends where you look at it from. Let me put this in perspective. 1. protection of data is a right 2. dep3d tool is available - no more protection 3. encryption would nullify the use of the specified tool 4. encryption is a right - conclusion Again, i said it before, like several times now. I couldn't care less about the content that has no commercial value (even though this is also part of my IP). I do care about the one which does. Messing in someone elses work is of bad taste (at least in my mind). Using its content for your own purpose is even worst, and i understand and support (to a degree) why some would prefer others NOT to mess with their files without a prior consent, especially when that is written in a license file. But none of the above can compare with the use of content outside the armaverse. Period. And before you bring the rippers into discussions yet again, for the nth time, it is not the same amount of ppl that can use it. I feel we are repeating ourselves though

You can release the MLOD using a 2nd/3rd LOD. In the end staring at a 3d model won't help you learn how to model (but will allow you to use it commercially). A 2nd or 3rd LOD will still contain selections, etc, and the p3d will still have its other special LODs (mem, geometry shadow etc) in place. It would provide the same amount of info for learning purpose

He has the right, he doesn't have the means (yet) The tools are BI's. The content created with that tool(s) isn't. It is like saying that everything one creates using a free software (blender/gimp are the free ones that i can think of right now in the media.creative department) is the propriety of the software developers, which is bull, and i know you know it. Love the attitude. Yes he actually means he can have some in 2 pbos the whole addon. One with the content you can learn from, and one with the 3d model and mesh, textures and whatever else, which you can't learn a thing more than looking over BI samples. Simple. Better than to allow people like yourself who don't respect a damn contract (EULA) and they rip apart other ppl work, no matter what purpose that is. And all you have to do to get the same result is send a PM/mail. I find it fascinating. I keep hearing about the devoted community, that wants (but is not allowed by elitists who are selfish and they don't share their work and content - preferably in a mlods/editable format) to develop for this game, and increase the user made content and functions. Guess what: it is not like that at all. 90% of the community is made by users/consumers and NOT creators/developers. Most of the people here just use, and never give back (in whatever form). And that is to be expected behaviour. What i don't get is WHY the very same people are having an opinion here, or WHY they are against a lockable OPTION, since their current behaviour would suffer no change (nothing to earn or loose). What does BI have to do with it? You are saying that BI shouldn't spend time and get involved on creating/releasing a pbo lock option, but then, all of a sudden, they should get involved, and tell me how to pack an addon? Really... I am using commercial software for creating the mesh behind an addon. Most of us do (again, the exceptions are Gnat and maybe Myke). Besides that, we spend money and time on getting references (in forms of books, pdfs, etc etc). For 2d work, it goes the same way. Same goes for textures the configs and other code out there. It can be done (and it is done) outside the tools provided. Now, what does BI have to do with all that? We are all grateful for that, and the fact that this game is so modable is the main reason the game is evolving (see all the content available in BI based on community development), and is lasting that long. BI, more than anyone, should know it. You'll be surprised. I already proven that assumption is wrong. There is one thing to provide the framework, it is another to actually own the content created using the framework, or ported in your framework. More than anything writting in this thread (which i said i won't be posting it, but seems i have changed my mind) i find mindbogglingly the way addon making is perceived, and the lack of respect for other people work (that you call selfish) which provides new toys, environments and functions for free for you to play with, and in exchange, all they are asking for is just that: to respect their IP, and their conditions stipulated in the EULA. If you find that a bad deal, well, then i got no further comments.

quadro gfx cards are intended for a diffetent purpose, and that is CAD environment (as you might already know). that said, the architecture of the card, and especially its drivers are not designed for CG. therefor, i doubt you will be able to get more out of that card without using other drivers (which were not designed for you gfx card in the first place)

Read it as you like, wasn't intend to be an attack. But then again, the internet allows you to read as you please. you throw this out as if I was the one persecuting them. I never actually asked for proof. I just made an affirmation, which seems not to be 100% true. I stand corrected. Well, it is not enough for me, sorry Since this is a free forum, i have the right to an opinion, just like you do. I am not the one saying you are wrong, or right for that matter. I have expressed the need, for me, to have such an OPTION available. There was no demanding, only explanation about why such OPTION might come in handy for me, and others that have expressed the same feelings. In the end it is up to the addon maker in which form he would be releasing his addon, under what sort of license, and what additional safety measures he would take to ensure the use of such addon/content is according to his views. You (generic you that is), as a user, should RESPECT the license agreement that comes with an addon/mission/script pack etc (if that is present, of course). If you don't like it for whatever reason, you are free NOT to use it. Unfortunately, the license is not a real protection it seems. As it seems sides have been formed, and a normal discussion have taken a completely different turn than i would have expected, this is my last post here. It is up to BIS to provide or not with said tools. As someone else said, their silence probably means it doesn't matter that much for them one way or the other, and prefer (like expected) to stay neutral, at least for now. ---------- Post added at 10:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 PM ---------- I was not. If it seemed i was talking in the name of others, was not my intention anyways (bear in mind that english is not my native language) I can only speak for myself, and maybe, for other people i have been in contact with on the subject.

It doesn't. But what i meant to say is that the ones bringing the selfishness in this thread more often that they change their socks, are the ones who have never given back to the community. (your own clan doesn't count since that is a...you guessed it....locked community) Why? because a game addon is more important than what it says in the license that comes with it? I see so many in the addon request thread, so many in asking for ports over. Half of those would have been solved if one would actually think about it: hey, why don't i try it myself...

You sort of can. It is called maya :)

Oh lovely that one. I want credits myself for inventing the internet transactions, since i had a talk about those back in the day, over a pint, with my brother.. You should have created the fix yourself, then you would be credited, like every addon maker who's content is now in A2/OA. surely you can't be talking serious. Besides, are you actually unpacking all released addons and policing everyone around those boards? Seems that almost everyone (minus a few like gnat, echo DW) who is against the OPTION to lock a pbo has never released something back for this community, and never intends to. CG, although is saying that locking pbos is selfish, has only been a consumer, using parts of configs and scripts for his own mission, inside his own community. I feel dazzled about it. Same goes for nuxil. For the sake of the argument, can you find a good reason NOT to have the OPTION? If, as you are saying, only the ego-centric, and the so called elite of this community would be using, then where's the problem? By the looks of it, everyone else won't, so you won't be able to poke around the content of only a few members or groups around here(RHS, RKSL, CWR), where most are creating models anyway.

Oh really? Do you live on the same planet with us all?

cheers will do. i'll see about the normals, but i usually prefer to model as much as i can.

I can say the LP mesh is done. 18k faces. i'll soon start the HP, and in paralel the UV mapping. click img for larger _____________________________________________________________ It depends if you want to create your normal map via a 2d program or plugin (PS, Gimp, CrazyBump, nDO etc), or baking a HP model into the LP model via a 3d software (any modelling software, xnormals etc) It is not hard at all, you just need to pay attention to some stuff, no matter what method you choose to do. Feel free to PM me, or contact me on skype (just click the button bellow my avatar). Mudbox: You can choose which sort of controls you want on start (max, maya, XSI, motionbuilder) Zbrush is better overall than mudbox (more functions, a lot more diverse in terms of brushes...I found it better to work with, although the UI is anything but simple to get used to).

I spent over 2000 hours with A1. I spend i guess double that in OFP. I guess the same can go for A2. (that excluding the mission editor, and the buldozer time) PS: Your thread says POLL, but i guess you forgot to actually add it

no, the A2 engine doesn't support (or in fact doesn't have implemented) render to texture

i do admit i know nothing about visitor (i guess we are talking about the vis available in vbs sdk). but i do know the situation for o2 and the other tools, and belive me, it is no difference there

Only 30mins left i guess for the LP click for bigger

And that is something i understand although i am still thinking you are comparing 2 very different things

Even better, why are you posting a mission related script in ArmA 2 & OA : CONFIGS AND SCRIPTING (addons)

One of the reason i already said (but echo said i just think of models to be special, when they're not) i am actually in favour of a way to lock/encrypt those p3ds (again, maybe similar to the way signing tools work in relation to the private key) rather than the whole PBO.

have a look over BIS sample models, or wait for Myke or Rock (both dealing with planes) give you hints you need

h3y dud3! Yah,th3r3 R an1mz f0' vehz n'arma2 butt th3'z n0 add0ns r3l3az2d s0 n0 dwnld link 4 dem

BI uses 3rd party software to develop content (read max/maya). Those are commercial products available to anyone for a price (which is rather steep) Besides that, everything else goes the through the same pipeline used by any other modder out there (BI Tools 2). BI using a more sophisticated version of what is available for free in their tool pack is just a myth. hence this thread holds no purpose.

Regarding models: You can't really learn more than by looking at the BIS sample models for A1 that are released. You can't learn to model from it, and the animation and the like are available in the model.cfg, which is embedded in the p3d file on binarization anyway. That is ofcourse unless you want to copy paste some faces in your own project (or worst). So it isn't for the same reason you got. I really see no reason against it being encrypted. Everything is encrypted in BIS games. They just tolerate the de-binarization tools. They don't really tolerate the p3d ripping tools though (all post linking to it are not available anymore on BIF).

That doesn't matter. There are free software available (blender for modelling, gimp instead of PS). I own (legally) 3ds max. The license cost about 3500$. But i doubt the others using commercial software (modo, max, maya etc) have bought it for doing addons for BIS games. I really don't. I know i haven't Ohhh, how you like to turn things around now. You have said modding is about fun, and you do it for yourself first and foremost. Now, if that is true, who is there to hurry you? Your employer? You will loose anything if you were to send a damn PM and wait 2-3 days for an answer? It is NOT about this community. How many times does one need to say it to you? IT is not about the fear of someone from this community stealing from someone else, because that can be taken care after all. Why are you ppl against the OPTION (which has already been developed by BIS) being given to the addon makers to lock their PBOs. It has been said before: it doesn't mean everyone will take that step. Some will, some might, some won't. I still don't get what is the big deal about it. You obviously never did something yourself for this game. 1. if that was to happen, i wanna see how many would release something. How can my IP be transfered to BIS just because it is used in BIS games? 2. if that was too happen, it should also state that any use outside BIS game is an infrigment to copy right, and since BIS is the owner, it is IT who needs to take legal action and protect it. That is because i have transferred my IP to BIS based on some sort of agreement that says it won't be used outside this game. I doubt BIS is willing to take that step. I would ---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ---------- That is very true. Then again, there is an option already available developed by BIS (see the BAF DLC, and soon to be released PMC). Would that be against the open source principle, if it would allow the models to be protected?. Really? What is all open source? By reading the Why License Matters thread, as well as having some words with Dwarden, it doesn't look that way from where i am standing...